... because testing methods don't remain static over time? Here's a really great read.
The other, seemingly more likely, answer is that Armstrong was using a masking agent.
Armstrong stripped of 7 TdF titles
- Thread starter Deckerd
- Start date
... because testing methods don't remain static over time? Here's a really great read.
The other, seemingly more likely, answer is that Armstrong was using a masking agent.
Apparently donations to his charity are up. I'd call that a win-win. People who think Lance Armstrong cheated get to see him stripped of his medals, people with cancer benefit, and people who support Armstrong can still believe that he didn't cheat because they aren't going to be convinced by pretty much anything but an admission. As for Mr. Armstrong. If he didn't cheat, he can take solace in his charity doing well, if he did cheat he can still take solace in his charity doing well and will just have to suck it up over the fact that he was caught.
There was some guy on ESPN the other day who reported on most of Armstrong's career. He said he's convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Armstrong cheated. He also pointed out that every single person who finished second has either tested positive, admitted cheating, or has been implicated in cheating scandals. What an odd little sport.
Well, none of us here know the real story or have access to the factual data, so all we can do is speculate.
We can make various assumptions and stack them together to arrive at theories and explanations, but they remain hypothetical explanations, NOT fact. So, it's important to draw upon available facts whenever possible.
So, with the addition of a key witness and several other important ones (10 altogether) and evidence of blood showing characteristics only possible with doping, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Now, the next question is, if he tried to fight it and LOST, would the damage be much worse than what he is doing now? He claims that he is tired of the fight. Who knows how much time and money it takes to fight it.
But the key thing is that if there is evidence that the USADA has been well behind the doping curve, that earlier samples are now being subjected to more effective tests that NOW show there has been doping (and there HAS been, at least once Armstrong tested positive for EPO, with a lame doctor's excuse to try explaining it away), then there isn't anywhere to hide.
It's interesting to consider the degree of doping. Clearly there isn't just one technique and supplement. There are at least several. Are some more invasive than others? Are some helping to speed up recovery and some actually boosting endurance? In any case, blood transfusions tear into the integrity of the sport. What's really sad is that there has been a recent rash of people being caught doping in the cycling sport. This is endemic of a breakdown in integrity across the board (sponsors, managers, doctors, pharmaceutical companies). If anything, maybe Lance should help be the mouth piece to help drive an important change. Otherwise... well, who is going to care about cycling, knowing that behind the scenes some crafty people are getting a very unfair advantage?
We can make various assumptions and stack them together to arrive at theories and explanations, but they remain hypothetical explanations, NOT fact. So, it's important to draw upon available facts whenever possible.
It means a lot if we can understand Hincapie's motivations. Is it possible to establish the real motive for why he is coming forth now, instead of volunteering earlier? He may have been asked before and declined. Why confess now? It could be for competitive motivations, or perhaps he is being given a deal, being shielded from incrimination to tell the truth.
THIS is key. Unless there is a clear leap of bicycle materials technology that makes cyclists go faster and longer, then it all rests upon the human body. We have a very slow progression of improvement over time, but nothing substantial. Then in the 1990's that begins to change until we have Lance Armstrong and his team busting records like nobody's business. THAT is suspicious.
From what I'd read, the test results imply that there was blood doping based on the readings. It's more like there isn't a trace of the doping, but the effects of having doped are there. It's an important difference. If they have solid evidence of this, then it's very compelling.
So, with the addition of a key witness and several other important ones (10 altogether) and evidence of blood showing characteristics only possible with doping, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Now, the next question is, if he tried to fight it and LOST, would the damage be much worse than what he is doing now? He claims that he is tired of the fight. Who knows how much time and money it takes to fight it.
But the key thing is that if there is evidence that the USADA has been well behind the doping curve, that earlier samples are now being subjected to more effective tests that NOW show there has been doping (and there HAS been, at least once Armstrong tested positive for EPO, with a lame doctor's excuse to try explaining it away), then there isn't anywhere to hide.
It's interesting to consider the degree of doping. Clearly there isn't just one technique and supplement. There are at least several. Are some more invasive than others? Are some helping to speed up recovery and some actually boosting endurance? In any case, blood transfusions tear into the integrity of the sport. What's really sad is that there has been a recent rash of people being caught doping in the cycling sport. This is endemic of a breakdown in integrity across the board (sponsors, managers, doctors, pharmaceutical companies). If anything, maybe Lance should help be the mouth piece to help drive an important change. Otherwise... well, who is going to care about cycling, knowing that behind the scenes some crafty people are getting a very unfair advantage?
Yeah, it sounds a little like pro bodybuilding. Except, you know, it's a sport.
I've no reason to doubt that Armstrong cheated. But how much does it matter, if everyone eligible to replace him in in the amended record books doped as well?
I noticed seven or eight guys in the gym this afternoon wearing those yellow Livestrong bracelets. I can't say I pay enough attention, usually, to know whether that's an unusual number; I do know I've seen them before, and frequently.
A good day for clean sports. No real surprises there for anyone who's followed cycling through the years (although I'm happy to see people like Hincapie admit their guilt; unfortunately history has shown that you don't have to be a jerk to dope, nice guys do it too, given the "right" environment...).
The USPS/Armstrong doping conspiracy is the the worst cycling has ever seen, and that says a lot, maybe the worst one in general next to the East German track&field program, and it's good that this information finally gets mainstream attention after all those years.
The USPS/Armstrong doping conspiracy is the the worst cycling has ever seen, and that says a lot, maybe the worst one in general next to the East German track&field program, and it's good that this information finally gets mainstream attention after all those years.
We're seeing some of the others involved start to pay. Bruyneel has stood down from Radioshack, though I haven't read anything to say he is admitting his alleged very substantial role in the doping at Postal Service. Though of more interest for myself is that Matt White who rode with Armstrong at PS and was the director of the Australian pro-team, Orica-GreenEDGE and very involved in the Australian national mens road team over the last few years was linked to doping in the report and today admitting his cheating and has stood down.
Asterix said that since all the Gaulish drink the magic potion, it doesn't matter who wins and that they just draw lots after the contest.
That's how they should do it in that sport as well. Maybe it's just the concentrated media attention, but it seems like bicyclists are a special breed of sportspersons that will cheat no matter what. It doesn't matter to them one bit that there's no personal achievement whatsoever. They could ride on e-bikes as well, wouldn't make a difference.
Aaaaand it's done. UCI confirms USADA's recommended penalties. No recourse against that decision from what I understand, it's final: Armstrong has never won the Tour de France.
This whole Lance Armstrong doping business smacks to me of character assassination. I don't trust the media for they just suck up to character assassination without questioning the facts, I don't trust the anti-doping agencies because if they were doing their jobs none of these scandals would occur. The fact is big money is involved, that means there must be results and the best must be better so have them cheat and bribe the USADA or whatever anti-doping organization.
In today's world you were either born famous/successful/rich or you made it by getting lucky, cheating and grafting, or you have insider knowledge. It's funny but the more mainstream and commercialized a sport, the more these 'revelations' about doping come out.
Lance Armstrong is just another classic ritualistic sacrifice designed to maintain the illusion that the USADA is doing its job, whilst crushing quite a few people's hopes and it won't really do anything to the sport. Because people will still watch it and will forget about this doping scandal thanks to the trivialized 24/7 media. That's what 'they' want; a good farce to distract the sheeple.
Besides if Lance Armstrong was the world's best, and they all cheated, it just proves he was special. Or perhaps he outcheated the cheaters. Besides this whole doping thing is a bit of a misnomer; athletes are supposedly the perfect physical specimens of humanity. If they're perfect most of that was made through design and a little help from their genes to. I mean if you eat a special food which makes your heart faster you can have it, but if you take some drugs to achieve the same affect that's a no-no?
Maybe there should be two classes for sports and cycling; the doping league and the non-doping league?
So, which dope-using cyclists are Armstrong's titles going to be given to?
I sincerely doubt it was solely Lance Armstrong who ran this whole doping operation, if nearly all the top cyclists have been doping themselves then a) Lance Armstrong has been scapegoated, and b) doping is part of this sport.
If the top cyclists are doping junkies then it stands to chance they're all taking the same substances, thus Lance and his competition are technically on the same footing. Besides it looks pretty clear that in the recent past every cyclist took performance enhancing drugs. I mean if Lance's whole team were in on this scheme, then other cycling teams must have known about it (cos' they must have scouts and people spying on other teams), and they didn't seem to be bitching about it too much. Which means they too were concocting elaborate doping schemes just as Lance allegedly was.
Besides, the definition of 'fairness' in a profession sports is a joke. Team GB's athletic velodrome bikers have the best bicycles and helmets in the world due to advanced aerodynamics technology; no other country can match Britain in that regard. That whole industry is kept under close wraps. Is it any wonder why Britain wins so many medals in velodrome events?
F1 cars are never alike because each team can use different materials and even components. The team with the most reliable and fastest car wins; so much for racing talent prevailing.
In virtually every sport there is always some part of it where it can be tailored to suit the individual, no sport is ever truly standardized. If athletes are allowed an unfair advantage through technological or equipment means, why are they penalized due to biological means?
It seems to me that the team or country with the best technology, the best training facilities, and the more money to spend, tend to have the greater number of winners and medals in sporting events. Besides with or without doping, their are athletes who break new records and wipe out the competition; which is pure natural talent. I still think Lance had such talent and if his competition was equally doped up then he won fair and square. Besides the guy suffered from some serious cancer problems, it should have been the end of his career and probably the end of his life, yet he went on to win some more Tour de France titles. If that isn't talent I don't know what is.
Whether he was innocent or just as crooked as the rest of his peers, Lance Armstrong has undergone character assassination. Every corrupt organization makes these ritualistic sacrifices to pretend it's getting serious with its sleaze and wrongdoing. The government does it, the banks do it (think Lehman Brothers), it even happens with respectable sports.
When the dust has settled, some new doping rules will be brought in. Now, either cyclists and their teams 'fess up and admit they were rather naughty and clean up their act (and we'll know it if world records aren't broken for many years), or the big money buys up the USADA and new performance enhancing drugs are used.
If the scandal becomes too big and does not settle down, expect the WHOLE cycling sport and the USADA to be sacrificed (and by that I mean all the corruption is brought to the light) so that the powers that be can sooth public opinion.
So, which dope-using cyclists are Armstrong's titles going to be given to?
I read a while back that at least the TDF officials were contemplating to simply have no official winners for those TDF's. No idea if that option is still on the table or if it ever was more than a rumour.
So, which dope-using cyclists are Armstrong's titles going to be given to?
I read a while back that at least the TDF officials were contemplating to simply have no official winners for those TDF's. No idea if that option is still on the table or if it ever was more than a rumour.
It's not a rumour, it's the official position of the direction of the Tour.
Edit : wow, wikipedia already erased his name from the winner list. Like he never existed...if only...
Last edited:
I like that 1999-2005 is on the same level as WWI and WWII now.
And @Dennis: It's a fallacy to think that doping is an equaliser. The USADA investigation into the US Postal conspiracy proved convincingly that their doping program was the most sophisticated and integrated of all time. Lance Armstrong was not just doped, he was doped more than anyone else, and maybe even worse, forced the dope on his teammates as well.
He was not "the best of a bunch of cheaters" or whatever, he was the preeminent cheater in the sport. Someone whose natural talent never would have gotten him close to the top in the Tour and who poisoned the soup for hundreds of legitimate athletes over almost decade.
Really. They either have to rebuild the entire sport from scratch or remain hypocrites.
It's exactly as if the IFBB had decided to investigate and strip Schwarzenegger of his seven (coincidentally) Olympia wins. Everyone on the stage was juiced, and still is.
From AFP today:
Not solely Armstrong, of course, but he was right in the middle of covering up and deceiving regulators. Read the affidavits.
Look at the "sport" you're describing above. "Substances" and "schemes" and "spying." The fact that there is such a furor about the doping scandal shows pretty clearly that the majority of fans are not interested in a contest between who has the most sophisticated dope labs and cover-up operations.
But there are volumes of rules and specs that the cars are supposed to comply with. If a team breaks those rules but finds an effective way to deceive the technical inspectors, does that mean they deserve to win?
How about: Because the rules of the sport they are participating in forbid it?
[Armstrong's] Tour victories are unlikely to be re-awarded, the race's director Christian Prudhomme has said. The void would prevent further headaches, given that most riders who finished on the podium in that time have since been implicated in doping.
But the final decision will come in a special UCI meeting on Friday.
But the final decision will come in a special UCI meeting on Friday.
Not solely Armstrong, of course, but he was right in the middle of covering up and deceiving regulators. Read the affidavits.
Look at the "sport" you're describing above. "Substances" and "schemes" and "spying." The fact that there is such a furor about the doping scandal shows pretty clearly that the majority of fans are not interested in a contest between who has the most sophisticated dope labs and cover-up operations.
But there are volumes of rules and specs that the cars are supposed to comply with. If a team breaks those rules but finds an effective way to deceive the technical inspectors, does that mean they deserve to win?
How about: Because the rules of the sport they are participating in forbid it?
Similar threads
